The New Minefield of Corporate Political Spending

Earlier this year, when the US Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts could not be limited under the First Amendment (in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission), the outcry was immediate and vociferous. The decision opened the door for private companies and unions to contribute directly to political campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. Surely, critics predicted, we would enter a new era of campaign finance in which big corporations would spend lavishly to advance their selfish agendas.

But as the first round of state primaries ends, a different cautionary tale is unfolding. Various activists and consumers have been vigorously expressing their anger towards a group of Minnesota-based companies, including Target and Best Buy, for the large contributions they made to MN Forward (for Minnesota Forward), an organization devoted to regional economic development which in turn endorsed and paid for ads backing a Republican candidate for governor.

According MN Forward’s executive director, the group favored the candidate, Tom Emmer, because of his progressive ideas for creating jobs and growing the state’s economy. But after a federal judge decided on August 4th to overturn California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages, a national debate was ignited on gay marriage and the spotlight fell on Emmer’s conservative stance on social issues. The corporate contributors to MN Forward (beyond Target and Best Buy, they include Pentair, Hubbard Broadcasting, Davisco Foods International, and Polaris Industries) suddenly found themselves on the receiving end of consumer boycotts, petitions, and social media attacks.

The story shows where power now lies. We’ve entered a new “reputation economy,” in which people increasingly choose among competing products and services based on their impressions of how the companies behind them behave. Corporate brands therefore have to worry more than ever about becoming embroiled in any controversy that might tarnish their image. As Brayden King, a professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, told Bloomberg Business Week, there’s “a market out there for reputation. Activist communities are well aware of that and will use it as a way to get leverage.”

King uses the term “private regulation” to describe what we may see as a result: companies being constrained not by government but by private interests with enough power to keep them in check. But a company’s actions can have ramifications far beyond the effects the company intended, as the Minnesota imbroglio suggests. Therefore, even companies who are expert at understanding and tracking consumer perceptions might hesitate to take advantage of the new rules of campaign finance.

Meanwhile, as Target struggles to wash off the bulls-eye painted on its back, the curious silence emanating from Goldman Sachs starts to make sense. Over the last 24 months, Wall Street’s leading investment bank has been railed against by both clients and regulators for its conduct during the financial crisis. It has lost a great deal of political capital and reputation. Nonetheless, Goldman has declined the invitation to speak out and defend its actions. One wonders if and for how long the company can resist the temptation, but so far it has refrained from funding any political advertising.

Perhaps its management realizes it’s a tough climb back to a top-tier reputation. Certainly, advertising doesn’t offer the shortcut it used to. Earlier this year, when Reputation Institute asked 7,790 US consumers if they “trust what companies promise in their advertising,” nearly 20% claimed to overtly distrust corporate advertising, outweighing the 17% who said they believe what brands promise. Faced with such skepticism of their paid messages, few companies will be able to talk their way into customers’ good graces. To earn a solid reputation — to enjoy people’s trust, admiration, esteem, and good feeling — they will have to deliver quality products, and beyond that, model ethical behavior, corporate citizenship, innovation, institutional leadership, and workplace excellence.

The companies who are willing to commit to doing all of that are more likely to find people willing to listen to their views on policy matters. And that may be true whether they pay to advance those positions or not.

Dr. Charles Fombrun is founder and chairman of Reputation Institute, a private advisory and research firm specializing in corporate reputation management that consults to companies around the world.

Dr. Charles Fombrun is founder and chairman of Reputation Institute, a private advisory and research firm specializing in corporate reputation management that consults to companies around the world.

Partner Center

The email and password entered aren’t matching to our records. Please try again, or reset your password. If you have a username from our previous site, start by using that. Please See our FAQ for more.

If you are signing in for the first time on the new HBR.org but have an existing account, please enter your existing user name and password to migrate your account.Please see Frequently Asked Questions for more information.